White women are kinda, sorta… most definitely raciss n sheeeeiiit. But what about those righteous, morally superior goodwhite women who throw off the burden of white privilege and happily date black men?

Unfortunately for branding purposes, these moral paragons aren’t exactly the classiest or thinnest ladies. From an earlier draft of a paper referencing the same Yahoo Personals internet profile data, researchers discovered (likely much to their chagrin):

Body type, political views, and religion are also related to the exclusion of blacks or Asians. Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ] For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance. Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates. Further, white men who do not state a religion or who state their religion as “other” are far more inclusive of black women as dates than those who describe themselves as not religious. Likewise, white women of “other” religions are more likely to include Asian males as dates.

What a cluster bomb of hatefacts!

Now the only question remaining is whether fat white chicks settle for black men because those are the only men who’ll have them, or that black men try but fail to get sexy white chicks and decide to shoot for the easy prey because even a fat white girl is more feminine than the typical black girl? Same difference, I suppose. My limited knowledge of the mating rituals of matricentric cultures is that it’s a bit of both; fat chicks are stuck choosing between a steel-reinforced dildo and a black man, and black men hone in on fat white chicks because they love can tolerate grotesque booties and they learned from experience that sexy white chicks want nothing to do with them.

These findings are perfectly in line with the CH observation — heck it’s in line with just about everyone’s observations except that no one wants to bring it up at the company picnic — that the white women who date black men are often fat, gross, and classless.

Probably unsurprising to most, the kind of white women willing to dance by the dusky coonlight? Fat liberal white women with sanctimony issues.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that fat liberal white women are just about the most unappealing dating prospects for any white man with options and a working set of nads. So… good riddance.

And wazzup wit da Eskimos? Man they talk a big game about breaking down race barriers, but when the rubber hits the ho, it’s “Blacks?! Are you meshuggina??”.

Let’s end this journey through the human hindbrain on a hopeful note. Dear NOWAGs, if you want a white woman (and who doesn’t?), date a Wiccan. I’m sure you have the psychological tools to stoically endure her kookiness.

It hardly needs clarifying to regular visitors of Le Chateau, but CH has no problem with racial dating preferences. Racism is natural, evolved, and a part of what makes us human. Racism expands the diversity in the world by creating and sustaining group aesthetics that would otherwise get swamped into oblivion by a one-world fuckfest.

Like this:

In yesterday’s “A Test of Your Game” post, many commenters offered suggestions to the reader who asked how to open a girl in a coffee shop who had already expressed her interest with lingering glances and thrust butt in his pointed vicinity.

My favorite and personal go-to is, “Take a picture, it’ll last longer”, spoken with humorous intent. Commenter Claude Martel had a similar opener, “You know… it’s rude to stare.” Commenter Ludwig’s suggestion was also good (but you’d better be able to handle the heat you’re gonna get): Next time just draw a big cock n’ balls on the sumi ink station. (Claude adds: If you made a production of it, and really sold it, chin scratching, slow and deliberate strokes, I bet she’d laugh her ass off.)

These are clever and marginally jerkboy-ish openers that work well on pretty girls used to hearing the same old from dull suitors.

But, as YaReally noted, the reader in this scenario already has attraction. The girl gave him the standard-issue nonverbal female approach invitation.

“And yet, all PUAs recommend building attraction before building rapport and you’d do the opposite”

He’s already in A2. A3 would be him opening her (however he does it), so he can just go right into C1 (normal conversation shit like PermanentGuest described).

A1 = showing value. If she’s checkin’ him out and sending him obvious Approach Invites like that then he’s shown enough value for her to move things into A2.

A2 = female to male interest. She’s showing interest in him with all her flirty shit and eye-contact etc. she’s doing. So before he says anything he’s already achieved this. This makes it a Warm Approach with an AI, not a real Cold Approach. A2 is where a lot of Naturals start, it’s why a lot of Naturals 1) won’t cold approach for real, they often wait till they get a hard AI like this scenario before they’ll approach so they have a green light VS legit cold approach where the girl hasn’t shown any interest in advance, and 2) have pretty “boring” game where they just “make conversation…bro just ask her questions and listen to what she says and stuff”…they can do that because they’re starting from A2.

A3 = male to female interest (note that you wait till you’ve hooked her and she’s shown interest before you reward her with showing interest first…female to male interest comes FIRST). This is where the OP is starting out. Literally ANYTHING he does that pro-actively opens her is achieving A3, whether it’s a clever witty line, a “hi, my name is YaReally”, throwing a pen at her, doesn’t matter.

C1 = basic conversation about yoga or whatever. This CAN be more fun and witty and exciting conversation, but it doesn’t HAVE to be. Long as it pushes things in a sexual direction and towards the lay.

If a guy is getting THIS warm an approach and NOT approaching the girl, I would question if he’s actually into dudes. This scenario is like swinging at a T-Ball.

YaReally as usual nails the fundamentals. Given blatant flirting the girl has shown, the reader could just say “hi”, with cool, self-controlled body language, and be off to the races.

However, there’s something to be said for adding a dash of wit, if you come preinstalled with the brain shaker. I’ve been hearing a growing chorus of game-haters/trolls/self-regarding stoics litter the comments section with “try-hard” taunts.

Mucho gracias, senoritas, but since when did proactive courtship become synonymous with “try-hard”? Men, as the bustamove sex, have to “try hard” to get women. Do these anti-“try-hard”ers stand inert, like mute statutes, waiting for girls to alight on them like pigeons? Or are they huge pussies who need the crutch of mommy or their social circles to set them up on dates?

“Try-hard” is not an excuse for inaction. Let me refresh the haters’ memories: The original use of the term “try-hard” was to describe game that appeared too obvious to the recipient of the game. A guy who begs a girl for her number despite her increasingly adamant refusal is “try-hard”. A guy who makes what he thinks is a funny joke, crashes and burns, and then earnestly attempts an even worse joke is “try-hard”. A guy who says “m’lady” non-ironically is “try-hard”. “Try-hard” means “unsmooth”, not “OMG he’s spending precious ampules of manly pride and dignity by walking up and talking to her!! A real man has girls go to him!”

Which is to say, there’s nothing wrong and everything right with clever openers if you have the chops for them.

Cleverness is a fitness trait of men that women find attractive. Yes, if you’re in A3, you could pick up the girl with a simple “hi”, and follow from there the C1-C3 game strategy. But maybe your brain whirrs with too much energy for such plebian openers. You like flashing your cortical curves. So you open with something a little more complex than “hi”. You won’t kill the interaction. In fact, you’ll have improved your odds of closing the deal, as long as anything you say isn’t tainted by needy body language.

Pickup is supposed to be fun, for her and for you. Those witty openers are as fun for you as for her, if you’re good at them, and she’ll “pick up” on the fun you’re feeling, and be infected by it. A fun feedback loop ensues.

I sometimes think cleverness works on girls because their instinct is to judge men by how well they balance BUSTAMOVE with sexual indifference. It’s a balancing act that can take years to master. The clever opener is certainly signaling romantic intent, but if the clever opener is paired with aloof body language — BOOM goes the Bartholin’s reservoir. Don’t lean in, speak low and slowly, stand contrapposto, make strong eye contact, and flaunt your wit proudly. She’ll know you can still take her or leave her, but she’ll also know you’re the first man to say something interesting to her all month long.

Like this:

A reader needs game advice, stat. Time is of the essence, so think hard and think fast, like you would have to do if you were in the reader’s shoes right now.

At the coffee shop there’s a cute girl in line waiting for her drink. She’s wearing daisy dukes with red tights underneath; she has a yoga mat and a big black purse that would comfortably fit a bowling ball. Her back is turned but we’re standing close; she does two very subtle periphery glances – a short one and a longer one lasting about 5 seconds – I am unapologetically checking her out and she knows it. If there was any doubt, she sets her bag down on the floor in front of the bar and bends over in front of me. Then she sits down just to the left of the bar with her back still turned – there’s a chair to her right, but it has a sumi ink station and won’t be a good work space for my computer.

How do I open-to-close a girl in a coffee shop with her back turned that is deliberately trying to create sexual tension? If I clown I can open her, but I’ll kill the vibe. How do I keep the energy up without saying something so offensive that I get kicked out?

Forget any sexual stuff. This is, I assume, day game, in a coffee shop. If you immediately go sexual after she nonverbally flirted with you, she’ll perceive you as a desperate horndog, eager to chomp on her cockteaser beta bait.

You could implicitly call her out for glancing around, and then gently chastise her form. (This is a flip-the-mating-script category of opener.)

“It’s fun to check out the goods in a coffee shop. But the trick is to do it with some subtlety.”

This line of attack would require sitting near her, which would mean sitting at the sumi ink station (again, wtf). It would also encourage further conversation.

If sitting near her isn’t an option, then on your way walking past her, say,

“If you need some more time to check me out, I’ll be sitting over there.”

Likewise, this line is about assuming the sale and putting yourself in the “chasee” role. Chicknip.

Another option: Leverage your surroundings. Dawdle for a bit around the sumi ink chair as if you’re deciding to sit or not, and say,

“If I sit here I won’t get any work done. I’ll be distracted by… the ink.”

Like this:

Courtesy of the fine folk at the Seminary of Christian Sadists, a chart pulled from a research paper on the subject of patterns in racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters:

Where da white wimmin at? Nowhere near you, D’Quattroprius.

CH tackled this topic a while ago, coming to roughly the same conclusions as this more recent paper’s findings. In what are essentially self-report surveys, (Yahoo Personals profiles), white women profess the least desire to date outside their beautiful, privileged white race, and asian-american women the most desire to date outside their race. These, among other… problematic… confessions of the id, must bedevil Hivemind drones tasked with the maintenance and transmission of Equalist agitprop.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, understand the inherent limitations of self-report sex behavior data, even self-reports in real world non-laboratory contexts. As all good players know, what women say and which dick they privately raw dog are two very different animals. This crimson pill maxim applies as well to internet dating profiles. Yes, when women must consciously think about what kind of men they want to date, and they feel emboldened by pseudoanonymity, they’ll reveal glimpses of their limbic darkroom in print. But in the helter-swelter of a charged romantic environment, oftentimes that pro and con, bullet-point checklist women keep stashed in their hamster cage bedding gets tossed in favor of the “man in the moment” who distracts her from the whitenoise of her humdrum existence.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that the data-mined revelation that white women don’t want to date black men, and the countervailing “me own two eyes” observation that more white women are banging black men than one could surmise from the tabulated declarations on internet dating profiles, can both be true.

The dating preference survey data reveal that the rhetoric of those who fear a mudshark planet is overblown. But, equally overblown is the rhetoric of white knight pedestal polishers who insist no white woman would willingly date black men. For a refutation of that premise, I merely have to go outside and take a fifteen minute stroll on a nice day.

PS Yahoo Personals, as far as I know, is a free online dating service. There will be a sample set bias because free sites tend to attract certain types of women (roaring sluts, cheapos, unserious girls just looking for fun on the side, girls desperate for a relationship with a beta provider because they have no money of their own).

Up next: Ok, master of charms, but is it true only the dregs of white womanhood date black men?

Like this:

CH previously pontificated (among making other speculations) that Lubitz may have been a closeted gay man and/or a schizophrenic who experienced an acute break with reality.

The picture is clearing up. The latest news: Lubitz was a depressive who was taking drugs to stabilize his mental state. He had recently been dumped by his girlfriend, who was pregnant, and the timing of the dumping suggests the possibility that the kid was not his. Finally, details gathered from a sweep of Lubitz’s home computer show that he trawled gay porn and suicide websites. Also, Lubitz has a dramatic case of gay face. (I concede that in some effeminate-looking men, beta face can look a lot like gay face.) Lubitz’s friends used to taunt him with the nickname “Tomato Andy”.

My final pre-game call: Lubitz was a closeted gay who was cuckolded by his girlfriend and was suffering from schizophrenia. The combination of these three — ah, insults — to his mental well-being pushed him over the edge.

Is schizophrenia more common among gay men? If it is, maybe lives can be saved if employers are allowed to screen out high-risk candidates for jobs that require emotional and mental stability.

Like this:

Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. […]

The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by. […]

Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late. […]

Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. […]

It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. […]

Children, which she will persuade you that you want, on thought you probably don’t want. They are an ungodly burden until they reach adolescence, at which point they become ungodly monsters, before leaving for university and becoming ungodly expenses.

Marriage: The triumph of hope over reason. Maybe the Swedes have this one thing right: Don’t marry, just cohabit, if you like the monotonousogamous lifestyle of one woman, together under one roof, for years and years, as sprog nip at your heels and resignation slowly substitutes for happiness.